Was it right for God to order Abraham to kill?

[marco]

In modern times we have people telling us that their God told them to kill. We think this absurd. But God told Abraham to murder Isaac. It doesn't matter what the outcome was, we have a precedent for God telling a human to murder another human and not, apparently, because the boy deserved to die, as did the suckling infants in another tale.

Is the command correct just because it is God's?

Was Abraham right in agreeing to commit murder?

[dio9]

[Replying to bluethread]

come on there hasn't been sacrifice since the Temple fell. Nobody sacrifices bulls lambs or pigeons anymore.

Well in the civilised world, no; and that is because we have put aside old superstitions. Much of the argument against biblical ways is that they do not apply in a civilised world.
So we see a command by a deity that requires a father to kill a son as wicked.

Indeed we can see Abraham's ways are culturally very different from today's . Civilization has grown away from tribal culture . It appears to me what we need is a civilized understanding of God today. Cultural understandings vary, but some things don't change. Child sacrifice for example is appalling to us today, it is regarded as horrendous crime. Our ethics and morality have changed, to my thinking moving closer to God.

[marco]

There was no command of deity to kill a son; please provide reference if you think there's any.

“Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.�

This seems very like a command to me, given that it is in the imperative and provides details of how and where the sacrifice is to be made. It would be fascinating to see how one slips out of seeing this as God's instruction. Regardless of whether this is taken as a test or a game or a joke - it is a command, the outcome an irrelevance.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

come on there hasn't been sacrifice since the Temple fell. Nobody sacrifices bulls lambs or pigeons anymore.

That is correct. For there to be a sacrifice, there would have to be a Temple. However, the Scriptures state that there will be a Temple in the future and there will be sacrifices in That Temple.

[Monta]

There was no command of deity to kill a son; please provide reference if you think there's any.

“Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.�

This seems very like a command to me, given that it is in the imperative and provides details of how and where the sacrifice is to be made. It would be fascinating to see how one slips out of seeing this as God's instruction. Regardless of whether this is taken as a test or a game or a joke - it is a command, the outcome an irrelevance.

You are correct here but I was responding to today's environment
more in line with New Testament.

[marco]

You are correct here but I was responding to today's environment
more in line with New Testament.

Well unfortunately, Scripture is such that it can be quoted to suit any purpose. When people resented homosexuals they turned over a few pages of the Bible and found a reason to kill them. When people read the Koran and understand Allah's dislike of unbelievers, it is a small step to dispose of those God dislikes, and stand back for a divine vote of thanks. If all that came from the Bible were divine praises, love and respect for humanity, who would need a debate? Sadly, scientists died because they refused to accept superstitions.

The text we are dealing with shows that God can ask for murder - so why would we be surprised if people murder in God's name. Is the absence of a sacrificial ram the only proof that God did not will it?

[myth-one.com]

There was no command of deity to kill a son; please provide reference if you think there's any.

“Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.�

You have quote marks around the above sentence.

Where exactly is this quote taken from?

This seems very like a command to me, given that it is in the imperative and provides details of how and where the sacrifice is to be made. It would be fascinating to see how one slips out of seeing this as God's instruction. Regardless of whether this is taken as a test or a game or a joke - it is a command, the outcome an irrelevance.

One has no cause to "see how one slips out of seeing this as God's instruction" until someone can show that it was God's instruction!

Can you?

Monta is correct until someone can prove him or her wrong.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 115 by myth-one.com]

I don't know whether you're trying to mislead readers into thinking Marco's quote doesn't come from the Bible, you honestly don't know it yourself and the thought of God actually commanding someone kill their child is anathema to you...or you just want Marco to cite his quotations.
Either way, it's Genesis 22:2

https://biblehub.com/genesis/22-2.htm

I want to ask...why this reply to Marco? Why challenge him on the quote using language that implies that God didn't command Honest Abe to kill Lil' Izzy?

[marco]

You have quote marks around the above sentence.

Where exactly is this quote taken from?

Genesis 22:1-12

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"

"Here I am," he replied.

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"

"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.

"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son."


Since this is obviously a well-known passage I guess you are suggesting the Bible has not quoted God but has painted an imagined scenario. That's fine - but we can still ask whether the imagined command: "Kill your son" is good or bad if it were supposed to come from God.

One has no cause to "see how one slips out of seeing this as God's instruction" until someone can show that it was God's instruction!

Can you?

I am not remotely concerned about proving such a thing since I don't for a second believe the words came from a god. I am examining the scenario, depicted in the Bible, of a patriarch intent on murdering his son at God's command. If you want to challenge the Bible I've no objection. But that's a dissection for another operating theatre, I think.

[myth-one.com]

You have quote marks around the above sentence.

Where exactly is this quote taken from?

Genesis 22:1-12

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"

"Here I am," he replied.

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"

"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.

"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son."


Since this is obviously a well-known passage I guess you are suggesting the Bible has not quoted God but has painted an imagined scenario. That's fine - but we can still ask whether the imagined command: "Kill your son" is good or bad if it were supposed to come from God.

One has no cause to "see how one slips out of seeing this as God's instruction" until someone can show that it was God's instruction!

Can you?

I am not remotely concerned about proving such a thing since I don't for a second believe the words came from a god. I am examining the scenario, depicted in the Bible, of a patriarch intent on murdering his son at God's command. If you want to challenge the Bible I've no objection. But that's a dissection for another operating theatre, I think.

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

The word "tested" is used in the vast majority of Bible translations instead of "tempted."

Either way, everything that follows is part of that "test" of Abraham's faith.

Abraham had faith that God would fulfill His promise of establishing an everlasting covenant with Isaac's seed after him:

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

No bloodshed was ever intended.

God and Abraham knew that fact.

Abraham passed the test.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 118 by myth-one.com]

No bloodshed was ever intended.

God and Abraham knew that fact.

Abraham passed the test.

So what is the takeaway from this? What are readers to think? That one is to obey God, even if one knows, like you say Abraham knew, that God doesn't really want you to do it anyway? That one is to go through with the motions of the act, right up until the last moment, no matter how heinous the command might be if this isn't God we're talking about?